It appears the 4th amendment is dead, and citizens aren't entitled to its protections.  Add it to all the other dead amendments (1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, etc).

I guess America is just about finished becoming the police state with all Americans (except the police and government) being criminals.

Good thing that the police and the war on drugs finished up the Constitution.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145529,00.html


Drug War Shrinking Bill of Rights
Thursday, January 27, 2005
By Radley Balko
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth Amendment.

On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John Paul Stevens (search), writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment.

It's a troubling precedent. It's hard to see how any police search would violate any rights under Justice Stevens' ruling, so long as the search turned up something illegal. That sort of undermines what the Fourth Amendment (search) is all about.

That case is just the latest in a number of court rulings and pieces of legislation that have been chipping away at the criminal justice rights of substance-abuse suspects. Ours is quickly becoming a two-tiered criminal justice system, one in which there are one set of criminal protections for drug and alcohol defendants, and a broader set of protections for everyone else.

Last month in Virginia, pain physician Dr. William Hurwitz (search) was convicted on dozens of counts of drug distribution. Prosecutors and the foreman of the jury that convicted him conceded that Hurwitz didn't knowingly participate in a drug trade, but because the pain medication he prescribed made it to the black market, he was nevertheless found guilty. He faces life in prison. Proving intent — as is required to secure a conviction in nearly every other crime — apparently wasn't necessary.

The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception. Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime. Even if the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dropped, the mere presence of an illicit substance in a car or home can mean the loss of the property, on the bizarre, novel legal principle that property can be guilty of a crime.

Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55 years in prison (he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the one-time deal, though he never brandished it). Frustrated but hamstrung by drug laws, the judge in the case noted that just hours earlier, he had sentenced a convicted murderer to just 22 years for beating an elderly woman to death with a log. Courts have carved out a "drug war exemption" in the Bill of Rights for multiple search and seizure scenarios, privacy, wiretapping, opening your mail, highway profiling, and posse comitatus — the forbidden use of the U.S. military for domestic policing.

The other area where criminal protections are withering in the face of substance-abuse hysteria is in Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated cases.

The most notable example is the 1990 case of Michigan vs. Sitz (search), where the Supreme Court ruled that the problem of drunk driving was so pervasive, the Court could allow "random sobriety checkpoints" in which cops stop motorists without probable cause and give them breath tests, a practice that would otherwise again violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court has since ruled that the urgency of the drunken driving problem gives states the option to legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment (search) right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment (search) right against self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent testing, even though both could be done relatively easily.

State legislatures have pounced on these rulings. The state of Washington just passed two laws remarkable in their disdain for everything our criminal justice system is supposed to represent. The first instructs juries in drunk driving cases to consider the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," an evidentiary standard that's unheard of anywhere else in criminal law. The second mandates that breath test evidence be admissible, no matter what — even if the defense can prove that the breath test machine was broken, or jiggered toward higher readings.

Last year, Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich had his license revoked by state authorities after he revealed to his doctor during an emergency room visit that he sometimes drinks a six-pack of beer per day. His doctor reported him. Emerich wasn't accused or charged with drunk driving. In a bizarre twist on the principle of "presumption of innocence," Emerich must now prove to the state that he doesn't drive after drinking before he can get his license back.

More and more states are taking advantage of the Supreme Court's granted exemption to a right to a jury trial for DUI-DWI suspects, particularly in states where judges are elected, not appointed. That, of course, is because elected judges deemed insufficiently harsh on such defendants can have their "leniency" used against them when it comes time for re-election.

Though no such bill has yet to be signed into law, several state legislatures have also now considered bills that would mandate ignition interlock devices in every car sold in the state. New Mexico's version of the law would require all drivers to blow into a tube before starting their car, then again every ten minutes while driving. Drivers over the legal limit would not be able to start their cars or, if already on the road, given a window of time to pull over. Onboard computer systems would keep data on each test, which service centers would download once a month or so and send to law enforcement officials for evaluation.

The problem, as Thomas Jefferson famously said, is that the natural process of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. It would take a rare and brave politician to stand up and say that we need to roll back or reconsider our drug laws, or that it's unfair to give accused murderers or rapists more rights than we give DWI defendants. But that's exactly what needs to happen.

Quoted: On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John Paul Stevens (search), writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment.

Um, so police can come into your house at any time they want without a warrant as long as they say they're looking for something illegal to own?

Brilliant logic there.  

Oh, and since the 4th no longer protects privacy, I guess Roe v Wade is toast too, right?

Government is your friend.

Legalize all drugs damnit.

Quit telling people how to live.

If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal.

I don't care if they make their own either.

Same goes for prostitution.

Fucking morality policing is insane in this country.

Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country.

What he said.

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country. What he said.

Bigass +1.

We're not gone yet, but we are well on our way...

Parchment makes good toliet paper I hear.

On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John Paul Stevens (search), writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment.

Let me get this straight, the .gov can search you and your property (with or without a warrant) as long as they are searching for something illegal?

Am getting this correctly?

Quoted: Government is your friend.

That is one friend I'd like to....

Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country.

Dude, it isn't about morality, it's about government control.

But, but, but, it's for the Children! You weren't using those rights anyhow. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Prohibition works! Reefer Madness was a true to life documentary! A single toke off a joint will turn you into a slavering drug monster, willing to kill and rape and drive fast through school zones! The War on Drugs is about protecting the people by protecting Government's ability to take away their rights for their own protection!


Don't forget to pay your taxes folks. They can't do it without you.

Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution.

Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first.

No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids.

And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal.

Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected.

THEN maybe we'll consider it.

Take off the tinfoil hats...all that ruling was about was defining what constitutes "free air".

Officers are allowed to run a narcotics K9 around the EXTERIOR of any car that is legally detained (i.e. a traffic stop). If the K9 alerts then the officers can search the interior of the car.

All this ruling did was define the fact that there is no expectation of privacy for illicit odors escaping the interior of your car. We still need probable cause to search the interior of the car.

It's been that way for years.

We still can't just enter your house and look for dope without a warrant.....unless you are stupid enough to leave it in plainview where we can see it through your windows....and given the lack of reading comprehension and penchant for overreaction I have seen on this board, y'all just might be dumb enough to do

BUT DONT YOU FEEL SAFER?!?!?!1

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it.

Come on Mac, think about it. Regulate it ala booze. Go to the walgreens and pick up a bag of twizzlers and a bag of weed (taxed at the same rate as cigs, of course) rather than associate with the criminals.

And I've lived in Vegas. The worst thing about it is the fucking tourists. And as to the hooker analogy, you'd be better served by looking at Carson City, where prostitution is legal. Think Safford with more stuff to do. I've been there, too. It's pretty laid back. Nothing at all like downtown Phoenix or hooker row in Mesa. Pretty crappy argument.

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it.

You can start in my neighborhood, its already a haven for drugs.    The punks will either become legitimate businessmen or be driven out of the drug business by legitimate businessmen.   It happened after prohibition, I think the drug market would be the same.

also, the sale of legal cigarettes and alcholol are illegal when sold to children.  Why would meth, mj, or pcp be any different?  Why would you think it wouldn't require a license, like every other business involving drugs?

WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain?

Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country.

This is naive and would not work.   Your "solution" would result in increased incidences of drug abuse due to increased visibility and tolerance of said substances.   If meth were legally available, do you think that the number of tweakers would:
a) increase
b) remain the same
c) decrease

Correspondingly, do you think medical insurance costs would:
a) increase
b) remain the same
c) decrease

I have no problem with meth/crack/heroin/etc. being illegal.   I do have a problem with revisionist justices who feel it within their power to "interpret" the constitution to mean what they think it should say or mean.

The "war on drugs" and the DUI machine are all about BIG MONEY, big government budgets, giving government something to do to justify its existence, and about power.  

Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain?

See, it's a balancing act. The State will not take a mile if given an inch. It will take a THOUSAND miles. So the folks who dig in and refuse to give a millimeter are a foil. Figure it out--what happens when the sniffer dogs in a ban state start looking for the sweet smell of Hoppe's? Or the smell of burnt powder?

Oh, that's right, it's only a "little" incursion into your rights. It's for your own good. The Government means well....

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it.

Yeah! And the streets will be floowing with blood if we allow CCW. And let the assault weapons ban end and no one will be safe. They will be selling guns from ice cream trucks. We will all be doomed.

What worries me more than the searches is the trend towards mandatory minimums for certain types of crimes, usually Alcohol/DWI, drug, and gun crimes.  These are coming as a reaction to lenient liberal judges who refuse to punish serious criminals.  While I understand the desire to correct this problem, I fear we have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.  The simple fact is that there is no substitute for good judges in our society, and if we have bad ones they need to be replaced.  Mandatory minimums are going to create more problems then they solve in the long run.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it. Yeah! And the streets will be floowing with blood if we allow CCW. And let the assault weapons ban end and no one will be safe. They will be selling guns from ice cream trucks. We will all be doomed.

[The Macallan] How dare you equate filthy drugs to a constitutionaly protected right? Never mind the "pursuit of happiness" mentioned.[/The Macallan]

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it.

Why didn't we have any of those problems before these drugs were outlawed? Why did the problems appear immediately after they were outlawed?

Have you read any of the history of alcohol prohibition and what happened to alcohol abuse and crime?

Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain?

So the decisions outlined above don't exist?

There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions?

No exceptions to due process made in DUI cases?

These are all installed in our tin-foil?

Quoted: This is naive and would not work.   Your "solution" would result in increased incidences of drug abuse due to increased visibility and tolerance of said substances.   If meth were legally available, do you think that the number of tweakers would: a) increase b) remain the same c) decrease

There is no evidence that law enforcement has any beneficial effect on rates of drug use. Drug use fluctuates and changes over time for various reasons, but busting people doesn't control it. By the government's own estimates, they never seize more than ten percent of the drugs on the market. By some recent estimates, it is less than one percent. Simply put, prohibition is the complete absence of any control.

Historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among US children is anti-drug campaigns.

Correspondingly, do you think medical insurance costs would: a) increase b) remain the same c) decrease

In all probability, they would decrease. The Rand Corporation has done research that shows that treatment is at least seven times as cost effective as law enforcement in reducing drug-related problems in society.

I have no problem with meth/crack/heroin/etc. being illegal.

Try reading some of the history of how this drug problem developed. The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs

Quoted: The "war on drugs" and the DUI machine are all about BIG MONEY, big government budgets, giving government something to do to justify its existence, and about power.

You're right - DUI doesn't really hurt anyone....

-------------
Occurrence and Consequences

   * During 2004, 16,694 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2005).
     
   * In 2004, about 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice, 2004). That’s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).
     
   * Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).
       
   * More than two-thirds of child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 1997–2002 were riding with the drinking driver; only 32% of them were properly restrained at the time of the crash (Shults 2004).
-------------

Source

Quoted: Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain? So the decisions outlined above don't exist? There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? No exceptions to due process made in DUI cases? These are all installed in our tin-foil?

Ignore him.  He's just trolling again.  He does this on every thread involving the law or law enforcement.  He'll make a couple of really snide comments without any real argument, and then masturbate over the shitstorm the ensues.  

Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use?

Quoted: Explain to me the difference between going home after a hard days work and drinking a beer or a jack and coke or smoking a big joint? Nothing. And explain to me how you can outlaw a plant? Weren't all the plants put here on earth by god for our use?

There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions?

In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be.

keep a low profile...don't flash around pictures of your arsenal...clean out the used brass from under your car seats...don't keep all your guns in one place...if they must find something, let them find those you never liked anyway...

Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be.

In California, I know of one state-legal medical marijuana user who had his car seized over slightly more than an ounce. Two years later, he is still trying to find the right phone number to call to get his car back. Every time he calls, they tell him the number has been changed and he will have to call some other number where he leaves a message and they tell him they will call him back when they get around to it.

If the process is so fair, how do we wind up with a situation where 80 percent of the property seized is taken from people who were never charged with a crime?

And why should any of this property wind up in the hands of the police, anyway? That sounds to me like policing on a commission basis.

Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain?

once again johninaustin demonstrates his intellectual prowess, or lack thereof.

Lets, Johnin austin or volokh....gee, that's a tough choice of who to believe...

Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be.

But you still have to prove a negative as I understand it.  Not only that you were not involved in the criminal possesion but that the property was in no way connected at all and therefore "not guilty".  Try to prove a negative sometime lawyer or not.

Maybe I'm wrong here but that is what I have come to understand of the process.

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country. This is naive and would not work.   Your "solution" would result in increased incidences of drug abuse due to increased visibility and tolerance of said substances.   If meth were legally available, do you think that the number of tweakers would: a) increase b) remain the same c) decrease

I disagree. For a historical example, just look at alcohol prohibition. Drinking actually INCREASED during prohibition.

Meth and the rest are very visible and available for anyone who wants it. Anyone stupid enough to use is not stopped by the law, as is obvous with the state of the problem in our country. So while it may increase, it would be a very, very small amount, and I would consider it gene pool cleansing anyway. The small amount of increase would be well worth stopping the billions wasted fighting something that not only do they nto stop, but they don't even discourage. All the war on drugs accomplishes is employing a whole lot of folks, at out expense.

Correspondingly, do you think medical insurance costs would: a) increase b) remain the same c) decrease

Since I don't thing it would increase much, I say stay the same or maybe go up slightly, but much less than the amount we spend on prisons and LE activities nationwide.

For your theory to work you have to believe the only thing stopping people from doing drugs like meth is the law. I contend that anyone stupid enough to do the stuff is too stupid to care about the law in the first place, and all arresting tweakers does is drive up our taxes paying for all their medical, dental and lodging bills while putting off the inevetiable destruction of thier own life with the stuff.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it. Why didn't we have any of those problems before these drugs were outlawed? Why did the problems appear immediately after they were outlawed?

The development of drug-laws coincided with the development of drugs.

Cocaine and heroin were once legal, but not commonly obtained. As the production and use became much more widespread, so did the "downside" of such use. Hence the efforts of the people to reduce those effects which were generalized to the society.

Personal drug use has only limited effects on general society if only very few people engage in it. But as more and more people use it - the negative effects on everyone are magnified. The idea is to find a balance between individual liberty and the effects of many people exercising that liberty on the population as a whole.

Same with drinking and smoking. Public intoxication and smoking is not a "right" because it affects society as a whole. It is permitted where those effects can be minimized as it should be. But to extrapolate that balance for the sake of deciding legislation to include heroin, meth and crack use is to irrationally equate alcohol to meth, heroin and crack in much the same way anti-gunners try to equate bazookas and nuclear bombs to handguns.

The negative effects on society of widespread alcohol legalization (DUI, alcoholism, economic productivity, etc.) are nowhere near the negative effects on society of widespread heroin, crack, meth, etc. legalization. They are just not comparable. Hence, the legislation controlling "hard" drug use and distribution cannot be rationally made to equal that of alcohol or tobacco use.

Quoted: Have you read any of the history of alcohol prohibition and what happened to alcohol abuse and crime?

Yes and as I said, your effort to compare heroin to alcohol in order to allow heroin is no different than how antis compare handguns to bazookas in order to disallow handguns. The argument is a fallacy of distraction.

If you want to make the case that "prohibition of XYZ" will fail because "prohibition of ABC" also failed - then I'm sure you can see the illogic of that argument.

But you want to make the point that heroin, crack and meth should be legal - then just do that. But don't try comparing heroin and meth to alcohol because you might as well just compare them to milk and cookies too.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be. But you still have to prove a negative as I understand it.  Not only that you were not involved in the criminal possesion but that the property was in no way connected at all and therefore "not guilty".  Try to prove a negative sometime lawyer or not. Maybe I'm wrong here but that is what I have come to understand of the process.

Not to mention that just the fact of drawing out the process is far more of a disadvantage to the citizen than it is to the cops trying to seize the property.  So they seize the car you use to get to work every day. What are you supposed to do for the next two years while they decide you and the car were innocent? What if you were on the way to the bank with the receipts from your business and they took your working capital?

These aren't hypothetical examples, BTW. I have seen examples of both.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain? So the decisions outlined above don't exist? There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? No exceptions to due process made in DUI cases? These are all installed in our tin-foil? Ignore him.  He's just trolling again.  He does this on every thread involving the law or law enforcement.  He'll make a couple of really snide comments without any real argument, and then masturbate over the shitstorm the ensues.

Having an opinion of things that you are clueless about seems to be your Forte.  It's not possible to debate a  constantly changing fantasy.
When you guys actually READ and do BACKGROUND on the decisions you post about then I'll take you seriously.  Until that (very unlikely) moment,  these threads are just strictly entertainment value slightly above old Three stooges films.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it. Come on Mac, think about it. Regulate it ala booze. Go to the walgreens and pick up a bag of twizzlers and a bag of weed (taxed at the same rate as cigs, of course) rather than associate with the criminals.

Ah see... now you're throwing marijuana in the mix.

That's not what I was be talkin' bout.

I am firmly of the mind that marijuana should be decriminalized, no argument from me on that.

But not heroin, crack and prostitution. Totally different beast there.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be. But you still have to prove a negative as I understand it.  Not only that you were not involved in the criminal possesion but that the property was in no way connected at all and therefore "not guilty".  Try to prove a negative sometime lawyer or not. Maybe I'm wrong here but that is what I have come to understand of the process.

I can only speak for Texas, here a vehicle (for example) can't be seized for mere possesion of an illegal substance (including cocaine, meth, etc.).  There has to be sufficient quantity or packaging to prove distribution.  It is the D.A.'s Office that actually seizes vehicles/property so that basically there is a review independant of the P.D. to seize.  Now I know that in a minute someone is going to post that this is BS because their cousin's girlfriend's brother's uncle had his vehicle seized for a joint, if so it was either a REALLY, REALLY big joint or bullshit.

Quoted: There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? In Texas, it takes more than just a reverse presumption.  Under Title 59 of our code a hearing is required AND if the defendant can't afford an attorney the State provides one for seizure hearings.  The property in question doesn't just get seized on Thursday and driven by the Police on Friday.  The seizure process is drawn out and should be.

Thats better than your neighbor to the east, where they can sieze for little reason without charging you with any crime, allow you no court appointed attorney, and intentionally drag out the case. Then, once you have spent thousands on lawyers they will offer to "settle" and give you 40% back or threaten to drag it out for a few more years.

And the money? It gets split between the judicial fund, DA's office, and the siezing agency. Talk about hands in the cookie jar.

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country. What he said.

Many who are all for the "war on drugs" and it's loss of rights are the ones whining the loudest about the supposed loss of rights under the Patriot Act.  Of course, not one person has ever shown me where the Patriot Act does anything that was not already case law, but that doesn't matter.

We have lost FAR more rights due the "war on drugs" that we ever have or ever will lose due to the Patriot Act.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WHERE do you guys come up with this stuff?  Do you get primed  from some tinfoil website or does it just generate itself in your sweaty little brain? So the decisions outlined above don't exist? There is no property forfieture laws that reverse presumtions? No exceptions to due process made in DUI cases? These are all installed in our tin-foil? Ignore him.  He's just trolling again.  He does this on every thread involving the law or law enforcement.  He'll make a couple of really snide comments without any real argument, and then masturbate over the shitstorm the ensues.   Having an opinion of things that you are clueless about seems to be your Forte.  It's not possible to debate a  constantly changing fantasy. When you guys actually READ and do BACKGROUND on the decisions you post about then I'll take you seriously.  Until that (very unlikely) moment,  these threads are just strictly entertainment value slightly above old Three stooges films.

I have read.  So what part do you find comical?  I'm not here screaming the black helicopters are coming.  I'm saying exemptions have been made for forfieture, and DUI cases.  You may argue they are reasonable and appropriate, I see it otherwise.

Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first.

No problem!  I could open up a "drug store" and make a lot of cash.  I would love to be the expiremental place for repealing the laws!



No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids.

Lame logic there boss.  What makes you think people will sell it in the playground?  Why not a store?  Why not out of their home?  They only sell it on the street and in public places to avoid being caught in a residence and to blend in.

Giving "free samples" of beer to minors is a crime, how would this be different?  Public inoxication is a crime as well.  It doesn't matter what the substance is.

And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal.

You mean THE strip with all the casinos that rake in millions and millions every day?  That sure would help with the tax base.  Whore houses would have to be in a commerical zonning area since they are a BUSINESS.  


Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected.

HA, do you know why property values suck in bad areas?  Because they are bad areas.  Why are they bad areas?  Because the drug trade brings criminals.  Why are they criminals?  Because drugs are currently illegal.  Legalize the drugs and make them as available as booze and a whole sector relating to crime is gone.

Drug related crime has to do with the element that sells the illegal goods.  If those goods are legal no one will bother visiting their shady connection because its just as cheap and safer to go to a 7-11.

You don't have any right to dictate to people how they live.

Don't like your neighborhood then move to a gated community.  I don't see how having bars in an area means drunks are filling the streets everywhere.

Quoted: You can start in my neighborhood, its already a haven for drugs. The punks will either become legitimate businessmen or be driven out of the drug business by legitimate businessmen. It happened after prohibition, I think the drug market would be the same.

After prohibition ended, did the effects on society of alcohol abuse (DUI, alcoholism, public intoxication, juvenile use, etc.) go up or down?  

Quoted: also, the sale of legal cigarettes and alcholol are illegal when sold to children.  Why would meth, mj, or pcp be any different?  Why would you think it wouldn't require a license, like every other business involving drugs?

Yeah, that's what keeps underage kids from smoking and drinking. It's not the availability of beer and cigs on every corner - its the sign at the cash register saying "21 and under".

Why would meth, crack or heroin be any different?

The_Macallan, for your theory to be valid one must belive there are hoards of people just waiting to try these drugs once legalized.

I maintain that anyone stupid enough to use them could care less about if it is legal or not. And the laws have done nothing to stop the distribution or availability....... so how do they affect the rates of users.

As for prostitution, in some places in our country and in many others it is legal, and in those areas they have much, much less trouble from it than where it is outlawed. What two consenting adults do is between them and not the government.

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fine. But let's start in your neighborhood first. No laws against meth production, possession, sale or use in YOUR neighborhood only. Same with heroin, hallucinogens and crack too. Let YOUR kid's playgrounds be filled with punks and thugs openly doing and selling drugs. Let YOUR sidewalks and schools be filled with junkies passing out "free samples" to kids. And let your neighborhoods resemble the Strip in Vegas on a Saturday night, with all the filth, porn and prostitutes packing YOUR streets where it's legal. Come back after a couple years of that and let us know how your property values, crime and delinquincy rates are affected. THEN maybe we'll consider it.

IF it was all legalized, you would NOT have meth labs hidden in houses or sidewalks filled with junkies.  The stuff would be produced in legal mfg facilities or grown on legal farms and sold through controlled outlets such as liquor stores.

I personally think anyone who touches meth, coke, crystal, etc is an idiot, but smoking a joint at home certainly never hurt anyone.  If they go driving while stoned, hit 'em with DUI.

As a matter of fact, the very things you mentioned ARE happening due to it being illegal.

Mac, I agree with you on most things, but your logic is very twisted on this one.

Quoted: The development of drug-laws coincided with the development of drugs. Cocaine and heroin were once legal, but not commonly obtained. As the production and use became much more widespread, so did the "downside" of such use. Hence the efforts of the people to reduce those effects which were generalized to the society.

When and how exactly was this? Can you give me some more details? The reason I ask is that I have quite a bit of that history online, and the History Channel did a four hour special out of my web site, and that explanation is not consistent with what I have seen.

Personal drug use has only limited effects on general society if only very few people engage in it. But as more and more people use it - the negative effects on everyone are magnified. The idea is to find a balance between individual liberty and the effects of many people exercising that liberty on the population as a whole.

At one time these drugs were included in at least half the medicines sold over the counter, without restriction. Children could buy them as easily as they could buy aspirin today. What were the addiction rates then compared to today?

Same with drinking and smoking. Public intoxication and smoking is not a "right" because it affects society as a whole.

Unless there are blowing smoke in your face, or something similar, how does it affect society as whole?

It is permitted where those effects can be minimized as it should be. But to extrapolate that balance for the sake of deciding legislation to include heroin, meth and crack use is to irrationally equate alcohol to meth, heroin and crack in much the same way anti-gunners try to equate bazookas and nuclear bombs to handguns.

If you care to research the comparative effects on society, there is no illegal drug, or combination of illegal drugs, that has ever come close to the toll of alcohol.

The negative effects on society of widespread alcohol legalization (DUI, alcoholism, economic productivity, etc.) are nowhere near the negative effects on society of widespread heroin, crack, meth, etc. legalization. They are just not comparable. Hence, the legislation controlling "hard" drug use and distribution cannot be rationally made to equal that of alcohol or tobacco use.

Well, that's simply wrong. Alcohol is associated with about half of all deaths from homicide, auto accidents, drownings, and fires. It is also associated with about half of all domestic violence and about two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. According to the US DOJ, it is the only drug with any real association with drug-induced violence. No other drug even comes close.

Yes and as I said, your effort to compare heroin to alcohol in order to allow heroin is no different than how antis compare handguns to bazookas in order to disallow handguns. The argument is a fallacy of distraction.

Pardon me if I say that, so far, you haven't convinced me that you are really acquainted with the history.

If you want to make the case that "prohibition of XYZ" will fail because "prohibition of ABC" also failed - then I'm sure you can see the illogic of that argument.

No, I am afraid I don't see the illogic of that. As a matter of fact, as I read the history, I see quite a bit of similarity between the two. I am constantly being surprised how much original documents from the 1920s read like they were written yesterday about drugs, and not alcohol.

But you want to make the point that heroin, crack and meth should be legal - then just do that. But don't try comparing heroin and meth to alcohol because you might as well just compare them to milk and cookies too.

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions to see how much you know:

1) What is heroin? What is the difference between it and ordinary hospital morphine that is legal and used routinely in medicine every day?

2) How many people are killed by drugs in a typical year? Please include the totals for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and heroin in your list.

Quoted: Quoted: Legalize all drugs damnit. Quit telling people how to live. If they want to be a tweaker...fine let them kill themselves.  Who cares.  If they move to crime to support their habit...fine that said crime is illegal. I don't care if they make their own either. Same goes for prostitution. Fucking morality policing is insane in this country. This is naive and would not work.   Your "solution" would result in increased incidences of drug abuse due to increased visibility and tolerance of said substances.   If meth were legally available, do you think that the number of tweakers would: a) increase b) remain the same c) decrease Correspondingly, do you think medical insurance costs would: a) increase b) remain the same c) decrease I have no problem with meth/crack/heroin/etc. being illegal.   I do have a problem with revisionist justices who feel it within their power to "interpret" the constitution to mean what they think it should say or mean.

Straight from the DEA manual for you sure as hell have no way of knowing that all that bullshit you just said would come true.  No logic in your thinking at all.